Janesville, WI Police supervisors form union to avoid pension payments

[10-94/10-96]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119865384.html

Janesville police supervisors form union to avoid pension payments
e-mail print By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel
April 14, 2011 2:41 p.m. |(58) Comments

Sergeants and lieutenants at the Janesville Police Department have hastily formed a union so they won't have to contribute to their pensions, the Janesville Gazette reports.

The bill would require all public employees -- except unionized police and firefighters -- to start paying a share of their own retirement. The Janesville police supervisors were not part any union, so they formed one on a 14-0 vote.

"Basically, if we're not exempt, they (union personnel) are going to have a chance to make more than the supervisors will make because we'll be paying into our portion of the WRS (Wisconsin Retirement System)," Sgt. Charles Aagaard, president of the new Janesville Police Supervisors Association told the Gazette.

Police and Fire should have been included in the Collective Bargaining law.

And these guys are a bunch of idiots...way to look greedy as hell.

[1042 Trooper]

Gotta love them unions! Ad nauseum ........

[-Erik-]

They should be thankful they get a pension post retirement. Not everyone is so fortunate.....

[jeffIL]

YA!! F those guys for wanting what they were promised!!

[10-94/10-96]

YA!! F those guys for wanting what they were promised!!

Promised? If they didn't have some sort of employment contract, then compensation is free to be changed by their employer.

As for bitching about patrolmen possibly making more...it happens when you're on salary and they aren't. It happened in my department, and I'm sure it happens at most decent-size agencies across the country.

Bottom line: the individuals involved came out on record saying they voted a union in place strictly so they wouldn't have to contribute to their pension. What does that say about their character?

[-Erik-]

YA!! F those guys for wanting what they were promised!!

How much would they have to pay into their pension? 25 percent? 50? No matter how you slice it I am sure it is less then what those who do not get pensions from there job get to pay into theirs.....

[jeffIL]

So you're telling me that when they joined the department they weren't told this is your pension and how it works? Now mid-game they want to change the rules.

[1042 Trooper]

That's life for us grown ups. Deal with it.

[-Erik-]

So you're telling me that when they joined the department they weren't told this is your pension and how it works? Now mid-game they want to change the rules.

I'm not saying it is fair in the least. But the voters allow you to have that pension, they can just as easily take it away. Or to ease the tax burden on the citizens that pay your pension, you are being asked to pay into it a little.

The bottom line, they still get to have a pension. Does it suck for them that they now might have to pay into it somewhat? Yeah kind of. But none the less they get to keep the pension.

[jeffIL]

I'm not saying it is fair in the least. But the voters allow you to have that pension, they can just as easily take it away. Or to ease the tax burden on the citizens that pay your pension, you are being asked to pay into it a little.

The bottom line, they still get to have a pension. Does it suck for them that they now might have to pay into it somewhat? Yeah kind of. But none the less they get to keep the pension.

Ok, but then don't they have every right to try to avoid it? They signed up for one thing, and now the state wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. And 1042, ya...I get it. Screw the guys that are still working. Enjoy your retirement.

[-Erik-]

Ok, but then don't they have every right to try to avoid it? They signed up for one thing, and now the state wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. And 1042, ya...I get it. Screw the guys that are still working. Enjoy your retirement.

Good for them if they get to avoid it, but I still say that paying into a pension at 25 percent or 50 percent is better then paying into it 100 percent like a lot in the private sector.

[BigPat]

Gotta love them unions! Ad nauseum ........

What does any of this have to do with the actions of existing unions?

[BigPat]

Promised? If they didn't have some sort of employment contract, then compensation is free to be changed by their employer.

As for bitching about patrolmen possibly making more...it happens when you're on salary and they aren't. It happened in my department, and I'm sure it happens at most decent-size agencies across the country.

Bottom line: the individuals involved came out on record saying they voted a union in place strictly so they wouldn't have to contribute to their pension. What does that say about their character?

I don't think that it says anything wrong about their character. They are simply using a perfectly legal means to preserve the same level of compensation/benefits that their subordinates receive.

[DAL]

That's life for us grown ups. Deal with it.

Us grownups????

They are dealing with the legislation quite effectively. The new law decreases their net compensation unless they form a union, so they are forming a union. Adults respond to incentives and act in their own rational self interest.

[FNA209]

They are dealing with the legislation quite effectively. The new law decreases their net compensation unless they form a union, so they are forming a union. Adults respond to incentives and act in their own rational self interest.

This the best post here. Unintended consequences at its best. Pass a law. People or groups read it and figure out how to best use it. It's little different than reading the tax laws and paying as little as possible by using the various tax breaks available.

If the intent was to limit people from adding themselves into the exempt group, the writers should have written it to exclude any new unions or something. Or the state/cities/towns could have excluded those groups by making them administrative positions and unable to unionize.

But I do agree with the OP. It does make those involved in sidestepping the law look rather greedy. Although the media won't pan them for it, I'm sure some taxpayers will remember.